kimpossiblefandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Characters Category
It seems that Syalantillesfel‎ and myself are at odds concerning the usage of the Characters category tag. I feel that the characters category tag is necessary so that when a user clicks on the Characters top level menu it will give them a comprehensive list of all characters in the wiki. Thoughts or concerns with this? Mknopp (talk) 15:29, September 7, 2012 (UTC) Here is Syalantillesfel's reply to my addition of the character category, "This character is already listed is sic other sub-categories, a link to the main character category is not needed." I disagree, the point of having tags as opposed to folders is the ability to add multiple categories, and while I appreciate the ability to sub-categorize a character I also see the need and benefit in having a single source for access to all characters in a single view. Thoughts on which way we want to do this on this wiki? 15:51, September 7, 2012 (UTC) COPIED FROM USER TALK PAGES: : Syalantillesfel ::As for the characters, I do not see the benefit of listing them on the main character category. I believe that the sub-categories (villian, male) provide enough description for a search. Unlike an episode, you do not have to remember what season a character was in. What is the benefit of listing all the characters on the primary character category? : Mknopp ::The benefit is a better navigation layout and user interface. Why make a user execute an extra click through and make guesses as to how a character would be categorized when there is no need for them to have to do so. By relegating all characters to some subcategory it makes more work for the user, and by eliminating an overall list of all characters it introduces more room for error and confusion. ::For example, say I want to find Dr. Drakken. I click on the characters category. Now, how do I find him? He is an adult, but when I click on the adult subcategory he isn't listed there. Does that mean that the wiki doesn't have a page for Dr. Drakken? Perhaps I should look under the Mad Scientist category? Again, he is not there. So, I finally click on Male and there he is. Now, keep in mind that this is a singular example of the problem, not the end-all of the issue. ::By only listing by subcategory we are attempting to predict every single subcategory that a user might possibly list a character under. For another example, is DNAmy listed under scientist? If not, why not? Should Monkey Fist be subcategorized as deceased? We have no way of predicting if a user would categorize him as deceased or not, thus introducing complexity into the user's search. ::Subcategories should be a way for a user to help narrow a search, not act as an impediment to their search. For instance, a user who wants to quickly see all of the Middleton High Cheerleaders could click on the Cheerleaders subcategory and have a nice simplified view of these characters, but they shouldn't have to click on this to find Tara, for instance. ::I hope that this outlines and exemplifies the many benefits that I see to listing all characters on the primary page and highlights the many problems that I see with only listing them under a subcategory. Mknopp (talk) 16:48, September 7, 2012 (UTC) COPIED FROM USER TALK PAGES: : Syalantillesfel ::Your reason for the character category is valid, but I have several comments on your reasons. ::1. Link the characters to the correct sub-category instead of the main category. That way the user you described will have a better chance of finding Drakken. ::2. Using Drakken was the wrong example, he is listed as 'Drew Theodore P. Lipsky'. ::Syalantillesfel (talk) 17:11, September 7, 2012 (UTC) : Mknopp ::RE: "Link the characters to the correct sub-category" ::That is just my point. What exactly are the "correct" sub-categories for each character? There are many times that the subcategory that a character belongs to my be questionable. This statement presupposes that each user is going to think the same thing as the editor who adds the subcategory. This comes up more than you might think. Just a few examples: ::Is Warhok actually a male? He is an alien and there may not be a simple male/female split in their species. ::Should Shego be listed as a hero? For a time in her life she was a hero and part of a hero team, and at the end of the series she helped save the world and received a medal for it. ::Is Dr. Fen a villain, a scientist, a mad-scientist, all of these, or only some of these? He isn't a good guy and definitely did something illegal, but does that make him a villain? For that matter is an engineer really a scientist? Some would say yes, and some would tell you no. ::Then bringing back up my earlier question. Is Monkey Fist deceased? ::Please do not focus solely on these few examples that I gave, since they are only given to illustrate a point, but I hope that I have made it clear why I don't believe that it is even possible to place things in the "correct" subcategory since so many subcategories are not absolute or known. ::And this doesn't even bring up disagreements between editors. By listing under subcategories only a character can appear and disappear from a controversial subcategory depending upon who last edited the character. Thus, when a user finds Warhok under the male category because Editor 1 believes he should be listed as a male, but when the user later returns and Warhok might not be listed under the male category because Editor 2 might have removed the subcategory because she believes that it isn't definite that he is a male. This only adds to the confusion and frustration of the end user. ::By not providing a single list of characters we only make it more difficult and possibly confusing for a user to find what they are looking for when the beliefs of the editor don't exactly match the beliefs of the user or even when the beliefs of two editors don't match, and only have subcategories for navigation. ::RE: "Drakken listed as 'Drew Theodore P. Lipsky'" ::This is a moot point and a strawman argument distracting from the real issue. Please focus on the topic on hand and not the exact accuracy of any examples given. You could have easily replaced Drakken in my statement with 'Drew Theodore P. Lipsky' and the content of the message would not have changed, and I believe that you know this. ::RE: "Your reason for the character category is valid" ::So, getting back to real topic being discussed, does this mean that you agree that we should categorize all characters under the top-level character category? Mknopp (talk) 18:01, September 7, 2012 (UTC) COPIED FROM USER TALK PAGES: : Syalantillesfel ::I doubt we are going to agree on the character categorization. Therefore, I am going to end the discussion with these points. ::1. I believe using the sub-categories is adequate. ::2. Several of the sub-categories, such as adult, are not prone to matters of differing opinion, since they rely on things such as age, which can be proven by how the character is animated/drawn. ::3. Using the forums is a good idea, it invites others to express their views. ::4. For categories such as hero, scientist, etc; the dominant personality trait should be used. Shego is not a hero since her heroism is very limited (flashbacks and a few episodes). Drakken is a mad scientist since his good science days are only shown in flashbacks. Dr. Beaufox (Camille Leon's surgeon) is not really a villian since what he did was legally gray/grey, the FDA/AMA probably approved the experimental surgery and his reluctance was motivated by embarrassment. He still had his medicial license. Kim's brothers found his name by searching public records, not hacking into a crime database. Fenn (Vivian Porter) is a villian since he stole credit for Porter's work. ::Syalantillesfel (talk) 20:03, September 7, 2012 (UTC) : Mknopp ::RE: "Agreeing to disagree" and "forum" ::While I am all for agreeing to disagree about esoteric, philosophical topics, this is a policy issue and as such agreeing to disagree isn't going to work. What are you going to do if I start putting character categories on all of the characters? Delete them? Then what do I do? Put them back? We as a wiki have to come to some policy decision and stick to it. That is the major reason that I put this on the forum, because we really need more input on this from other contributors and users. ::RE: "several sub-categories not prone to matters of differing opinion" ::I actually cannot think of a single category where there is not a character that there might be some debate about whether they belong there or not. ::Using your example, should Larry be categorized as an adult? In season four he is stated to be 19 years of age. For voting purposes and legal responsibility purposes he is an adult. However, he cannot drink alcohol. What about Brick Flagg? In season four it was stated that it took him seven years to graduate. So is he an adult? ::There are numerous other examples that I can think of. However, the fact remains that subcategorization is a subjective determination for a non-trivial set of characters and because of this is prone to ambiguity that doesn't have to be present. ::RE: "the dominant personality trait should be used" ::Why? That seems to negate the greatest benefit of the category system. I don't agree that the dominant personality trait should be used. Also, this ignores issues that aren't personality based. Such as, should the Tweebs be categorized as MHS students or not? They attended MHS in the fourth season, so they were students at MHS, but applying your "dominant" trait to this then they wouldn't be because they were not MHS students longer than they were. ::All of this though isn't likely the best way to decide what we should do since we don't seem to be reaching an agreement. ::Let me propose looking at this another way. Let me outline what I see as the pros and cons of each option. ::Categorizing as characters ::Pros ::*Less actions necessary to open a character page. (One click on Characters menu and one click on the character name in the character category page.) ::*Less confusion as to which subcategory may or may not include many characters. ::*Easier for developers to see which characters have pages and which don't. ::Cons ::*(I can't think of any.) ::Categorizing as subcategories only ::Pros ::*(I can't think of any.) ::Cons ::*More actions necessary to open a character page. (One click on Characters menu, one click on a subcategory (if you find it on the first try), and one click on the character name in the character category page.) ::*More confusion as to which subcategory may or may not include many characters. ::*More difficult for developers to see which characters have pages and which don't. ::Please help me finish this out. What are the drawbacks that you see as to categorizing as characters? Not will it work, not it is good enough, but what is actually bad about it? Mknopp (talk) 23:16, September 7, 2012 (UTC)